Kagan's Hearing: “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”

So being against racism and discrimination is one with a warped mind to you. I think you have it backwards. It is not decay if more and more people are offered the same opportunities as everyone else. We are leaving behind the moral perversions.

How are they perverted acts? What are perverted acts? That is only your opinion, whatever they may be.
You claim married heteros can never do perverted acts. At least you won't make a statement.

What is the perversion is the force self righteous hypocrites think they can lay on the rest of the world. Stop that perversion.

 

Same sex marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Pedophilia and bestiality involve raping a child or animal the 2 are in no way comparable.

not ever there is no such thing as natural law

 

It became forced on everyone when state legislatures started passing amendment's to their state constitutions that only marriage between a man and woman was legally recognized.

 

There are no evidences whatsoever.
Once you find one let me know.

 

There's an object lesson in there somewhere. Nobody saw any need for all those dozens of state constitutional amendments until a demand was perceived that needed to be stomped back down. But when an idea's time has come, the entire effort becomes meaningless and within only a decade they were all swept away, never having had any effect.

 

That is what I am saying all along, whatever they said does not matter, they just decided among themselves to deliver special rights for homosexuals. Right to choose has nothing to do with marriage. It is not in the books, it has never even have been seriously discussed.
So you have failed to provide any evidence at what point marriage suddenly become gay marriage (or benefits for gays).

 

In your opinion no evidence has been provided. Or at least no evidence that you are willing to accept. And that's the problem. You will never accept what we have to say. And apparently you won't accept what the SCOTUS has said, either. And they're pretty much the final word on the issue. I can only assume that you lack a basic understanding of how the law works in this country, or you deliberately don't want to hear or acknowledge the truth.

 

if law cannot be explained logically without a bias then it is not a law.
It is just a government policy, similar to dictatorship. There is no way to understand how marriage suddenly become collection of benefits distributed by the government with no apparent reason.
Any sound minded person who can resist propaganda and brainwash, can easy understand difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationship, and why government at all times imposed restrictions and responsibilities on man and woman while providing recognition of importance and sanctity of such relationship.
If we as a society have decided to separate procreation from marriage, it is fine, but then it has to be clearly communicated to general public why benefits are provided only for sexual activities, and why those activities are limited. New policies should be established by legislature, and of course, responsibility for sexual intercourse have to be completely eliminated.
I recognize political achievements and power of gay community, their connections in the government their ability to influence politicians, but it has nothing to do with a law, fairness or equality.

 

No evidence of what?

 

They didn't get special rights. 2 straight men can now marry. And getting the same right as someone else is equal, not special.

Marriage didn't become gay marriage. The gender restriction was removed.

 

What do you mean no apparent reason?

The government isn't concerned with "sanctity". It is bound by the constitution, and the constitution precludes discrimination based on gender.

Procreation has always been seperate from marriage, and nobody is getting benefits for sexual activities. No state requires sex in order to be married.

Of course it has to do with the law and equality. That's why you lost.

 

Again, I don't know why you seem incapable of recognizing the obvious. There have been NO special rights granted to homosexuals. They have just received the SAME RIGHTS everyone else enjoys. That is the whole point behind the ruling.

So lets see if you can follow this.

Marriage is right - marriage provides certain legal benefits to couples (2 people) that engage in the institution - those legal benefits and marriage itself is sanctioned by the state - the state cannot legally discriminate against people without a compelling reason to do so - homesexual sex was determined by the court to be no different than heterosexual sex - marriage as defined by being between one man and one woman discriminates on the basis of gender because one man and one man or one woman and one woman are banned from getting married - there is no compelling reason to support the discrimination (not even if you believe homosexual sex is immoral because the court determined legally there is no difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex - the court determined that because marriage is sanctioned by the state and provides for legal benefits to people engaged in marriage that the state cannot discriminate in its application - therefore homosexuals do NOT get SPECIAL RIGHTS they just get the SAME RIGHTS everyone else has.

If you cannot see that then your emotion is blinding you to the concept. You seem to think that homosexuals are some different breed of people. They are not. They are the same as anyone else. I have little secret for you too. I guarantee you that you have a homosexual family member somewhere...they may not be open about it but they are there.

It befuddles me why people, regardless of their political persuasion, would be against this. Homosexuals exist in every facet of our society. They are our mothers, fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins. Why would you or anyone else not want them to have the same rights as heterosexuals? Are you really that threatened by their existence? If you are I would suggest that there may be some underlying reasons for that.

 

As if you have ever accepted what the people have said. There were over 30 states where the voters said marriage is on man and one woman. The left and the activist's never "got over it". expect the same from logical people with reasonable thought processes.

 

You are befuddled because you have a warped sense of morality. Our society is threatened when we uphold perversion while we ignore the risks created by upholding perversions above reason and in some states the rights of young girls to an expectation of privacy and in at least one state the ridiculous decision to allow 15 yr olds to have sex change operations (while they are confused young hormonally imbalanced teens) without parental notification.

The fact that the activist's will not recognize the results from this type of belief system...speaks volumes about how far we have slid down the slope of depravity.

 

Yes...this is true today, The part you hhave to ignore is that all of the arguments used to support the homosexual "marriage" argument can be and will be used to support further perversions. But you could care less, libs are short sighted like that.

 

Again the morality or amorality of homosexuality is YOUR OPINION. Trying to force YOUR OPINION on the rest of us while claiming you love freedom is ridiculous.

You are welcome to your beliefs. You are welcome to associate with people who have the same beliefs but you are not allowed to force that belief system onto other people.

If you don't like state sanction same-sex marriage then start a movement to get a 1) a Constitutional Amendment allowing discrimination in marriage or 2) get the government out of sanctioning and providing legal benefits to married couples...good luck with that.

 

The activist's argument about it being discrimination is ridiculous. Yes...perverts have generally been discriminted against, for good cause, just like pedophiles are routinely discriminated against.

The hypocrites are those that use foolish laws to protect perverts while those same laws harm innocent children by placing them at risk...by eliminating a young girls right to an expectation of privacy.

 

A pseudo-slippery slope argument. The non-sequiturs keep rolling on.

 

It is not a gender restriction...never was, both genders could get married and still can, to the opposite sex. It is a specific law, written to specifically protect homosexuals, to protect people based solely upon these people's perverted sexual preference.

 

This same argument was tried and failed for interracial bans as well.

No it isn't.

 

I know the reason, but you don't that is why you failed to convince people, even though unelected officials served your private interest.
Once you find the reason for marriage let me know.

 

Lets start right here. Where exactly sex was officially associated with marriage to the point it become synonym of marriage?

 

Meanwhile you all are forcing your opinions and beliefs. One side uses a sound foundational set of principles...the other, current whims and emotions.

- - - Updated - - -

You could start with part A fits and is designed specifically to work with part B.

 

Now we have innocent girls losing their rights as "non sequiturs"...the left sure is all about love, fair play and equality NOT

- - - Updated - - -

Hard not to notice how little you care about the fallout. Young girls rights are secondary to perverts and their perversions.

 

No where and I did not say it was. The argument was made by you that same-sex marriage was different than heterosexual marriage. There are only two difference...the gender of the people involved and the way they have sex. You cannot discriminate by gender. You cannot discriminate by the way they have sex because that homosexual sex ruled to be legally no different than heterosexual sex. Please try and follow along.